Jump to content

WGI suspends Diamante - abuse investigation


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Lance said:

I've found that "mandated reporter" can mean a lot of different things.  I was talking about the system of mandatory reporting that I work under.  We're required to report things we've been trained on along with taking any student-reported incidents to our supervisors.  For instance, we learn what some of the telling signs are of physical abuse, how they react physically when you do something routine like get shoulder to shoulder with them to go over answers on a paper or computer screen.  Lots more, of course.  

Right on. Anyone working directly with or serving minors and young people should undergo such training.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lance said:

No.  I'm a pubic educator and have seen a version of the mandatory reporting process in action, though.  The thing that makes it work (or at least work better than previous ways of dealing with abuse) is (1) people who have been trained as mandatory reporters can get in significant legal trouble if they don't report abuse they've been trained to look out for under their watch and (2) retaliation against the reporter is 100% illegal with significant consequences if it's done.  

It doesn't remove all judgment on the part of the reporter, but it does severely reduce whether or not supervisors can choose to overlook issues that they "don't want to get involved" or fear reprisal. 

Your comment about being cautious about "no retaliation" is a red alert to me regarding the effectiveness of WGI's system.

It's to prevent retaliation against someone reporting. It's literally the same rule that's in DCI rulebook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, again, I was commenting on you saying "I've been cautious of the process in the 'no retaliation...;"

I was not attacking you for saying it, so sorry if that's how it felt.  Did I misread what you meant by that?  I thought you were saying that you felt there was a danger of retaliation.  Again, sorry if I misunderstood.

My point was that there are plenty of reporting policies in place that are ineffective because there is indeed fear of retaliation even if the policy ostensibly says there won't be.  If there is, then the policy is the very definition of perfunctory.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
7 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

My first logistical curiosity is who is this "independent someone" who will verify that corps has adequately trained their staff? Who sets those standards? DCI has someone in that ethics role. Should it be her? An independent organization, as some DCPers have suggested? According to Ms. Colyer's research, some current/recent MMs use the word "SafeSport" as a pejorative at this point, so it probably shouldn't be them either. All very curious and interesting.

Interesting questions:

Who is this "independent someone" who will verify that corps has adequately trained their staff?

I would think that is two fold. If the mandatory training is even partially done by eLearning, then there are literally HUNDREDS of independent companies who create, house and administrate eLearning through an LMS (Learning Management System) which includes real time reporting. I can literally pull real time compliance reports right now for 160,000+ employees for all of our annual training in any country we work in. 

Who sets those standards?

I feel like this one is maybe easier than I had originally thought. You simply adopt the standards of an organization such as SafeSport. The biggest hurdle would probably be getting the individual corps to vote "yes" IF a vote is even the way this should be done. I almost want to say take the approach that we take with our business partners. "Here is our compliance training. By signing this contract, you agree to our terms for delivery and tracking for the length of this contract." I would also agree that DCI already has an ethics coordinator. Simply add compliance to that role. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Excellent logistical solution.

I wonder about SafeSport's viability if MMs are using it as a pejorative though. But as you demonstrate, there are lots of companies who do this!

Agreed on the voting and adoption problems. DCI policing itself will always be problematic in my view. Anyone have an update on how that ethics coordinator gig is going for her?

 

I wonder about SafeSport's viability if MMs are using it as a pejorative though. But as you demonstrate, there are lots of companies who do this!

Excellent points. I would think that given the nature of reaction to SafeSport, the same general principles could be installed with alterations to more closely fit with the DCI / DCA activity. "A" model exists even if it is not "THE" model which becomes agreed on. This is where I truly believe that DCI lacks vision. Look at the existing model for SafeSport, look at the feedback both positive and negative, and write a policy that more closely aligns with your vision. I truly believe this is "WILL" issue and not a "SKILL" issue.

Agreed on the voting and adoption problems. DCI policing itself will always be problematic in my view.

And that is the part that scares me the most. I think in DCI / DCA's heart of hearts, they are stuck in the mindset that they are somehow protected from legal jeopardy by the way the institutions are set up (DCI vs Individual corps.) I am not a legal scholar so I am not going to pretend to know how much truth there is to what I believe is their thought process. What I DO know, is that in 23 years of corporate work, the one thing that you can rely on is that ^#$^ happens and you are NEVER as protected against legal action as you may think. 

DCI cannot police itself and hold itself separate from the corps. You either have skin in the game and the teeth to protect that skin with policy, or you allow an outside source to manage the whole thing whose decisions are final (though subject to appeal and review) and binding to ALL corps regardless of their financial importance to DCI. 

DCI is one lawsuit from non-existence. They do not have the demographic influence nor the financial wherewithal to survive a multi-million (or more) dollar lawsuit. They need to understand this and accept it as simple fact. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Weaklefthand4ever said:

 

they are stuck in the mindset that they are somehow protected from legal jeopardy by the way the institutions are set up (DCI vs Individual corps.) 

DCI is one lawsuit from non-existence. They do not have the demographic influence nor the financial wherewithal to survive a multi-million (or more) dollar lawsuit. They need to understand this and accept it as simple fact. 

 

Picturing a lawyer tearing a DCI head to shreds on the witness stand during a harassment/abuse trial.

”So DCI sets the rules and OVERSEES corps and their actions. But if crap hits the fan then it’s the corps responsibility and DCI has no say in anything?”.

DCI still running under ye olde “this is the way we’ve been doing to for years and we’re still here”. (Aka famous last words for many groups)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...